Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Mileage Run Deals > Mileage Run Discussion
Reload this Page >

[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!

Register
Community
Wiki Posts
Today's Posts
Search
Old Jun 19, 2013, 9:45 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: fti
People, please edit/use the wiki so same questions are not always asked.

The current CTA decision on the Yangon deal is only for tickets canceled by SWISS Airlines for the seven merged complaints/companions and tickets canceled by Jet Airways for one complainant and companions
- It's not about other carriers because each carrier submits different tariffs.
- If you are not one of the complainants or their companions above who were mentioned in the respective cases, you need to submit a case yourself for hearing.
- There's currently one person who is on Iberia for CTA decision, one can either wait for results or submit a complaint to CTA.

Result of the current case for LX in brief is:
- CTA found 5(F) in the tariff used to be unclear for canceling tickets on erroneously quoted fares.
- 5(F) is unjust and unreasonable and must be revised or taken down by July 9, 2013 (or SWISS can appeal by then)
- SWISS did not use its tariff correctly to cancel the tickets.
- SWISS must compensate one complainant's First Class ticket and any related expenses by July 18, 2013 provided with evidence.
- SWISS must transport other complainants (and their companions) in the original price charged with same booking class and routing by June 18, 2014.

Result of the current case for 9W in brief is:
- Tariff on file had no clauses for "erroneous fares" and was updated subsequently, which means it is not relevant to this event
- Therefore, 9W is to reinstate the tickets with a 1-year validity for transport between the same points and the same booking class.


CTA official news can be read here for general overview of the case.

Actual CTA case review can be found here for reference should you wish to file a complaint.

If you have a similar case that's with SWISS, you need to file with CTA to get a result through informal process first before it gets to formal process. The entire procedure can take up to 3 months for each and the result may not be same cause it's case-by-base and the reviewer of the case can be different.

To file an informal complaint with CTA, see here. Click through all of the pages to get to the online form for the informal complaint. Or click here.

To file a formal complaint after informal complaint has been closed, see here. Continue on to the next page to see the address or email address for the formal complaint.

The July 17th and 18th responses from LX can be found here:
Other Letters:


Feel free to add dates, flights, etc., in order to plan DOs, etc.

Aug 4: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612

Aug 5: ICN-SFO (UA892)
Jason8612

Aug 7: SFO-ICN (UA893)
Jason8612

Aug 11: ICN-NRT-ORD (UA78, UA882)
Jason8612

Aug 14: BOS-IAD-NRT-ICN (UA285, UA803, UA79)
Deltspygt

Aug 19: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA352)
Deltspygt

Oct 1: UA433-UA893
JeredF +1

Oct 8: UA892-UA242
JeredF +1

Oct 9: BOS-SFO-ICN (UA433, UA893)
BigJC

Oct 13: ICN-NRT-ORD-BOS (UA78, UA882, UA744)
BigJC

Oct 21: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
Sterndogg +1
flyerdude88 (SFO - ICN portion only)

Oct 23: ICN - SFO UA 892
flyerdude88

Oct 27: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-BOS UA286
Sterndogg +1

Nov 05: BOS-ORD UA521, ORD-NRT UA881
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1

Nov 11: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-IAD UA727
kokonutz, I012609, BingoSF +1

Nov 26: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-NRT UA837, NRT-ICN UA79
thepla

Nov 27: BOS-ORD-NRT-ICN (UA501, UA881, UA196)
BigJC+1

Nov 29: Planning 2 days in TPE, been to ICN
thepla

Dec 1: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-ORD UA698, ORD-BOS UA961
thepla

Dec 1: ICN-NRT-IAD-BOS (UA78, UA804, UA822)
BigJC+1

Dec 15: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
songzm

Dec 25: BOS-IAD UA285, IAD-NRT UA803, NRT-ICN UA79
Dinoscool3 +2

Dec 30: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA444
songzm

Dec 31: ICN-SFO UA892, SFO-BOS UA770
Dinoscool3 +2

Jan 11: BOS-SFO UA1523, Jan 12: SFO-ICN UA893
margarita girl

Jan 12: BOS-SFO UA433, SFO-ICN UA893
Zebranz

14 Jan: BOS-SFO UA433 to SFO-ICN UA893
ORDOGG

19 Jan: ICN-SFO UA892 to SFO-ORD UA698 to ORD-BOS UA961
ORDOGG

Jan 22: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA500
margarita girl

Feb 5: ICN-SFO UA892 SFO-BOS UA242
Zebranz



CMB-DFW EY F

FARE IS GONE

FARE RULES (thanks to SQ421)
FRTLK Fare Rules (RT)
FOWLK Fare Rules (OW)

WHEN ARE YOU FLYING?
Feel free to add any additional cities you're leaving from!
Please slot yourselves in!!!

ex-CMB
Feb

Mar
8 - Darmajaya
12 - Thaidai
22 - Deadinabsentia

Apr
21 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir
26 - tahsir21

May
28 - Upperdeck744
29 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)

Jun
12 - lelee

Jul
7 - HansGolden +6
8 - arcticbull + 1
11 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: SIN-CMB, DFW-MCI)
25 - Tycosiao
30 - bonsaisai's friend (positioning flights: MCI-DFW, CMB-SIN)

Aug
17 - DC777Fan
26 - Yi Yang
31 - dcas

Sep

Oct

Nov
8 - harryhv
29 - stephem+4

Dec
6 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. roastpuff , JFKEZE (UL Code-share)
7 - DWFI
10 - jlisi984 + dad (CMB-AUH-DFW)
21 - bonsaisai (positioning flights SIN-CMB, DFW-ORD)

ex-AUH
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr
27 - RICHKLHS

May


Jun
29 - yerffej201

Jul
9 - HansGolden +6
27 - Tycosiao

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov
30 - stephem+4 (to JFK)

Dec
7 - JFKEZE, DWFI [EY161 nonstop]
9 - roastpuff and (soon) Mrs. Roastpuff

ex-DFW
Jan

Feb

Mar
14 - Thaidai
15 - zainman +1

Apr
25 - SQ421, penegal, jozdemir

May

Jun

Jul

Aug
22 - arcticbull + 1

Sep
22 - bonsaisai (positioning flights ORD-DFW, CMB-SIN)


Oct

Nov
19 - harryhv->Paris

Dec
19 - Yi Yang, jona970318
24 - DWFI (EY160 nonstop)
26 - HansGolden +6 (CDG), LwoodY2K (AUH)
Print Wikipost

[PREM FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 16, 2014, 6:09 am
  #10336  
Moderator, El Al and Marriott Bonvoy, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Hyatt Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SIN
Programs: SQ*G, Mar LTT, Hyatt Glb, AA LTG, LY, HH, IC, BA, DL, UA SLV
Posts: 12,019
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
Because he can easily said that it was not him, it was not his words.

Otherwise, hackers, or even employees of FT or other internet services can easily plant "evidences" and you get into trouble, even if it was not you.
If this were a court and a murder trial, what you are saying is relevant. But in this case it is a regulatory body going through a civil process.

OJ was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil court still found him liable and ordered him to compensate the family.
yosithezet is online now  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 6:16 am
  #10337  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
Because he can easily said that it was not him, it was not his words.

Otherwise, hackers, or even employees of FT or other internet services can easily plant "evidences" and you get into trouble, even if it was not you.
All they would need to do is ask you a couple of questions... for example 'did you read about the alleged mistake fare on the internet on a travel blog or bulletin board?'

You would answer truthfully.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 6:19 am
  #10338  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near the pole, at the beach, top of mountains, underwater, golfing
Programs: AC E, FPC plat, TK E, VA G, HIlton diam, spg plat, CX gold, US air Plat, Hyatt Dia, A club Plat
Posts: 287
[FARE GONE] RGN First class comes back again!!!!
so unless the poster admit that it was him that post those comments, it would be extremely hard for the airlines to prove the intent that he want to take advantage of a mistake and knowing with certainty that it was a mistake in his mind.

it is easier for the consumer to be mislead and to think that it was a sale, and not a mistake in airline fare as:

1. airlines have low fares and sale all the time.

2. the airlines fares are extremely variable in nature. unlike specific physical products like tomatoes, that sell for normally a realtively fixed price across vendors, air fares fluctuate enormously even for the same exact product, same vendor, for the same exact flight and exact seats.

your seat neighbours can pay lower or a lot higher than you do, even if he buy on the exact same day for the exact same flight and same class

while if you buy tomatoes at the same vendor on the same day, that price is the same and any extreme variations of that prices can be interpreted as mistake.

because of the fluctuating nature of airfare, it will be unreasonnable to expect that a consumer is knowledgeable enough into technologies and airlines market fares and airline management intentions (to know the difference that a sale is a sale put up by management and not a computer error, or a lower rank human staff error) or to know the difference that a fare put on sale through MANY variable websites (expedia Travelocity etc) is valid or not.

3. if a fare is available for purchase on many different channel, available in many different countries, it is reasonable to expect that the fare is valid and not due to a posting error.

4. if a low fare was previously available for similar biz or fisrt routing to north America, it is also reasonable to expect that for a 3rd time that the fare is valid, a sale, deliberate or not by the managements. How can you expect a consumer to know the intentions of the airline management?
globaltravelers is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 6:23 am
  #10339  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near the pole, at the beach, top of mountains, underwater, golfing
Programs: AC E, FPC plat, TK E, VA G, HIlton diam, spg plat, CX gold, US air Plat, Hyatt Dia, A club Plat
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
Because he can easily said that it was not him, it was not his words.

Otherwise, hackers, or even employees of FT or other internet services can easily plant "evidences" and you get into trouble, even if it was not you.
All they would need to do is ask you a couple of questions... for example 'did you read about the alleged mistake fare on the internet on a travel blog or bulletin board?'

You would answer truthfully.
So what if you read it? It still does not easily prove that he intent to take advantage and was aware of the mistake in HIS mind.

It may be a mistake LATER in the airline management minds, buy how can you prove at the moment of purchase (contract) , that he was fully aware that it was a mistake and the airline did not INTENT to sell the fare? Especially that low fares was available before, and this is the 3rd time that it goes on sale?
globaltravelers is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 6:31 am
  #10340  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near the pole, at the beach, top of mountains, underwater, golfing
Programs: AC E, FPC plat, TK E, VA G, HIlton diam, spg plat, CX gold, US air Plat, Hyatt Dia, A club Plat
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by yosithezet
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
Because he can easily said that it was not him, it was not his words.

Otherwise, hackers, or even employees of FT or other internet services can easily plant "evidences" and you get into trouble, even if it was not you.
If this were a court and a murder trial, what you are saying is relevant. But in this case it is a regulatory body going through a civil process.

OJ was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil court still found him liable and ordered him to compensate the family.
the whole point was the airline NEED to show that the purchaser willingly know that it was a mistake and INTENT to take advantage, in order to even approach the notion of no meetings of the minds

It is extremely hard for an airline to prove that INTENT because of the fluctuating nature of the fare, and as this is the 3rd time that a fare is on sale
globaltravelers is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 6:35 am
  #10341  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
so unless the poster admit that it was him that post those comments, it would be extremely hard for the airlines to prove the intent that he want to take advantage of a mistake and knowing with certainty that it was a mistake in his mind.

it is easier for the consumer to be mislead and to think that it was a sale, and not a mistake in airline fare as:

1. airlines have low fares and sale all the time.

2. the airlines fares are extremely variable in nature. unlike specific physical products like tomatoes, that sell for normally a realtively fixed price across vendors, air fares fluctuate enormously even for the same exact product, same vendor, for the same exact flight and exact seats.

your seat neighbours can pay lower or a lot higher than you do, even if he buy on the exact same day for the exact same flight and same class

while if you buy tomatoes at the same vendor on the same day, that price is the same and any extreme variations of that prices can be interpreted as mistake.

because of the fluctuating nature of airfare, it will be unreasonnable to expect that a consumer is knowledgeable enough into technologies and airlines market fares and airline management intentions (to know the difference that a sale is a sale put up by management and not a computer error, or a lower rank human staff error) or to know the difference that a fare put on sale through MANY variable websites (expedia Travelocity etc) is valid or not.

3. if a fare is available for purchase on many different channel, available in many different countries, it is reasonable to expect that the fare is valid and not due to a posting error.

4. if a low fare was previously available for similar biz or fisrt routing to north America, it is also reasonable to expect that for a 3rd time that the fare is valid, a sale, deliberate or not by the managements. How can you expect a consumer to know the intentions of the airline management?
All of which is true, but there comes a point where it no longer applies... because the fare is such that it is likely to be unintended.

And in essence that is what the CTA decided in this case.

Different factors may have affected the outcome of the case:

1. is a relevant for example
2. is partially relevant
3. may be relevant, but not necessarily
4. is not relevant if you are comparing to RGN R1 and 2 only.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 6:43 am
  #10342  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
the whole point was the airline NEED to show that the purchaser willingly know that it was a mistake and INTENT to take advantage, in order to even approach the notion of no meetings of the minds

It is extremely hard for an airline to prove that INTENT because of the fluctuating nature of the fare, and as this is the 3rd time that a fare is on sale
the airline needs to put the argument forward that this was a case of mistake. they have to provide evidence and the passenger will have the right of reply.

then it is up for the tribunal/court to decide.

if the passenger doesn't like the decision, they may have an avenue of appeal .
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 6:45 am
  #10343  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near the pole, at the beach, top of mountains, underwater, golfing
Programs: AC E, FPC plat, TK E, VA G, HIlton diam, spg plat, CX gold, US air Plat, Hyatt Dia, A club Plat
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
so unless the poster admit that it was him that post those comments, it would be extremely hard for the airlines to prove the intent that he want to take advantage of a mistake and knowing with certainty that it was a mistake in his mind.

it is easier for the consumer to be mislead and to think that it was a sale, and not a mistake in airline fare as:

1. airlines have low fares and sale all the time.

2. the airlines fares are extremely variable in nature. unlike specific physical products like tomatoes, that sell for normally a realtively fixed price across vendors, air fares fluctuate enormously even for the same exact product, same vendor, for the same exact flight and exact seats.

your seat neighbours can pay lower or a lot higher than you do, even if he buy on the exact same day for the exact same flight and same class

while if you buy tomatoes at the same vendor on the same day, that price is the same and any extreme variations of that prices can be interpreted as mistake.

because of the fluctuating nature of airfare, it will be unreasonnable to expect that a consumer is knowledgeable enough into technologies and airlines market fares and airline management intentions (to know the difference that a sale is a sale put up by management and not a computer error, or a lower rank human staff error) or to know the difference that a fare put on sale through MANY variable websites (expedia Travelocity etc) is valid or not.

3. if a fare is available for purchase on many different channel, available in many different countries, it is reasonable to expect that the fare is valid and not due to a posting error.

4. if a low fare was previously available for similar biz or fisrt routing to north America, it is also reasonable to expect that for a 3rd time that the fare is valid, a sale, deliberate or not by the managements. How can you expect a consumer to know the intentions of the airline management?
All of which is true, but there comes a point where it no longer applies... because the fare is such that it is likely to be unintended.

And in essence that is what the CTA decided in this case.

Different factors may have affected the outcome of the case:

1. is a relevant for example
2. is partially relevant
3. may be relevant, but not necessarily
4. is not relevant if you are comparing to RGN R1 and 2 only.
Cta decided in HIS case because he may have admitted the intent to willingly take advantage and that HE, and only him, knowingly was aware that it was a mistake.

It does NOT mean that it is reasonable to expect millions of airlines passengers to have the knowledge and airfare technical expertise to make the distinctions between a sale and a mistake by the airline.

It is NOT reasonable to put the burden on the consumers to make that distinction each time that they buy a plane tickets. It will put too much uncertainties on an already variable and uncertain airline industry.
globaltravelers is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 7:07 am
  #10344  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
Cta decided in HIS case because he may have admitted the intent to willingly take advantage and that HE, and only him, knowingly was aware that it was a mistake.

It does NOT mean that it is reasonable to expect millions of airlines passengers to have the knowledge and airfare technical expertise to make the distinctions between a sale and a mistake by the airline.

It is NOT reasonable to put the burden on the consumers to make that distinction each time that they buy a plane tickets. It will put too much uncertainties on an already variable and uncertain airline industry.
It appears they went by the 'ought to have known' test: look at para [21] of the decision - my bolding for the relevant part. Even if you don't admit it is a mistake, you can be deemed to know:

[21] US Airways submits that while Mr. Alberque knew the quoted price was a mistake, the contract would still have been void if this was not the case as the law is clear that a contract will be void where a person ought to have known there was a mistake in a fundamental term of the contract. US Airways refers to Chief Justice McLachlin’s view, then sitting as the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court (BC SC) in First City Capital Ltd. v. B.C. Building Corp., 1989 CanLII 2868 (First City Capital), para. 29:

It is not necessary to prove actual knowledge on the part of the non-mistaken party in order to ground relief, as in this context one is taken to have known what would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the light of the surrounding circumstances.
And in the agency's finding at para [47], the agency says the applicant ought to have known:

[47] With respect to the fare, the Agency finds that US Airways has made convincing arguments regarding the wilful ignorance of any reasonable individual who would consider the fare part of a promotion or sale. In light of the surrounding circumstances, Mr. Alberque ought to have known that the fare was a mistake; by not raising the mistake with the carrier, Mr. Alberque intended to benefit from it. As argued by US Airways, the Agency is of the opinion that Mr. Alberque chose to remain silent in the hopes of securing an advantage.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 7:52 am
  #10345  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near the pole, at the beach, top of mountains, underwater, golfing
Programs: AC E, FPC plat, TK E, VA G, HIlton diam, spg plat, CX gold, US air Plat, Hyatt Dia, A club Plat
Posts: 287
The consumer should have known that it was a mistake.. And "ought" to know the mistakes... That argument has been put up by all airlines before.

It ONLY work IF there is a standard reference point, standard pricing, and in ANOTHER industry. It is not the case with airfares, Any airfare. It is not a physical product where pricing can be standardized, and consumers can easily compare and can be expected to know difference between a sale and an obvious mistake.

Once again, airlines industry by nature is variable, variable fares, variable pricing. Same plane, same class, different pricing. There is no minimum pricing and no maximum pricing : price fluctuate all the time. passengers all pay extremely variable prices for the same seat, same flight, same class. There is no possible easy comparision and hence it is NOT reasonable to expect that consummers "ought" to know that a certain fare is a mistake or not.

Unless the passenger knowingly admit that he was aware that it was a mistake, like in this case, otherwise, The exact nature of the variable industry airfares make that notion useless.
globaltravelers is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 8:17 am
  #10346  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,406
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
The consumer should have known that it was a mistake.. And "ought" to know the mistakes... That argument has been put up by all airlines before.

It ONLY work IF there is a standard reference point, standard pricing, and in ANOTHER industry. It is not the case with airfares, Any airfare. It is not a physical product where pricing can be standardized, and consumers can easily compare and can be expected to know difference between a sale and an obvious mistake.

Once again, airlines industry by nature is variable, variable fares, variable pricing. Same plane, same class, different pricing. There is no minimum pricing and no maximum pricing : price fluctuate all the time. passengers all pay extremely variable prices for the same seat, same flight, same class. There is no possible easy comparision and hence it is NOT reasonable to expect that consummers "ought" to know that a certain fare is a mistake or not.

Unless the passenger knowingly admit that he was aware that it was a mistake, like in this case, otherwise, The exact nature of the variable industry airfares make that notion useless.
The CTA did not base their decision on an admission by the passenger.

They based it on First City Capital - 'ought to have known'.

A base fare of $1000 might fit within your reasoning but it seems a base fare of $115 is not as easy.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 12:01 pm
  #10347  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
so unless the poster admit that it was him that post those comments, it would be extremely hard for the airlines to prove the intent that he want to take advantage of a mistake and knowing with certainty that it was a mistake in his mind.

it is easier for the consumer to be mislead and to think that it was a sale, and not a mistake in airline fare as:

1. airlines have low fares and sale all the time.

2. the airlines fares are extremely variable in nature. unlike specific physical products like tomatoes, that sell for normally a realtively fixed price across vendors, air fares fluctuate enormously even for the same exact product, same vendor, for the same exact flight and exact seats.

etc

etc

We've been through this nonsense many times. The fare was a mistake. I knew it was a mistake, CDKing knew it was a mistake and I'd hazard that everyone who bought a ticket knew it was a mistake.

The consumer-based argument in Canada so far hasn't revolved around the credibility of the fare: instead the argument has been that the airline is obliged to honour the fare, mistake or not, because it had no valid mechanism in its tariff rules to rescind it. For those in the US arena, consumer legislation was assumed to protect absolutely the purchaser of a fare as published.

Courts in the UK have considered "ought to have known" cases. In at least one of these (reported somewhere on FT) the judge found in favour of the consumer. But producing partial of arguments of how you could have believed the fare to be valid, how it might have been a promotion really isn't enough.

If it comes to the crunch you'll need to affirm to the court that you bought the ticket in good faith, believing it to be a valid fare, not what you might have believed. Some might be prepared to lie, but I'd hope that most of us would not.
IAN-UK is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 1:12 pm
  #10348  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,385
WOW...
yerffej201 is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 2:39 pm
  #10349  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: UA-1K, MM, Hilton-Diamond, Marriott-Titanium
Posts: 4,432
Geez.....My head hurts reading the last page.
cruisr is offline  
Reply
Old May 16, 2014, 3:21 pm
  #10350  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,757
Originally Posted by globaltravelers
so unless the poster admit that it was him that post those comments, it would be extremely hard for the airlines to prove the intent that he want to take advantage of a mistake and knowing with certainty that it was a mistake in his mind.

it is easier for the consumer to be mislead and to think that it was a sale, and not a mistake in airline fare as:

1. airlines have low fares and sale all the time.

2. the airlines fares are extremely variable in nature. unlike specific physical products like tomatoes, that sell for normally a realtively fixed price across vendors, air fares fluctuate enormously even for the same exact product, same vendor, for the same exact flight and exact seats.

your seat neighbours can pay lower or a lot higher than you do, even if he buy on the exact same day for the exact same flight and same class

while if you buy tomatoes at the same vendor on the same day, that price is the same and any extreme variations of that prices can be interpreted as mistake.

because of the fluctuating nature of airfare, it will be unreasonnable to expect that a consumer is knowledgeable enough into technologies and airlines market fares and airline management intentions (to know the difference that a sale is a sale put up by management and not a computer error, or a lower rank human staff error) or to know the difference that a fare put on sale through MANY variable websites (expedia Travelocity etc) is valid or not.

3. if a fare is available for purchase on many different channel, available in many different countries, it is reasonable to expect that the fare is valid and not due to a posting error.

4. if a low fare was previously available for similar biz or fisrt routing to north America, it is also reasonable to expect that for a 3rd time that the fare is valid, a sale, deliberate or not by the managements. How can you expect a consumer to know the intentions of the airline management?
Please. Putting aside arguments we make to various authorities and trying to stick to actual reality, did anyone here really have no idea that it was a mistake due to currency devaluation? That's what I thought. We all knew, and we're trying to take advantage of the situation. No problem there; but let's at least be honest with ourselves.

Oh, and next time any of us comes down on lawyers for getting people off on technicalities, let's remember what we're trying to accomplish here with this fare. I'm not saying that we shouldn't make every argument we can; I'm simply pointing out that that's what lawyers do and are consistently castigated for it.
Dr. HFH is offline  
Reply



Advanced Search
Reply Closed Thread Share
Forum Jump

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.